People ex rel. Lineberger v. Molina

204 A.D.3d 962, 165 N.Y.S.3d 320, 2022 NY Slip Op 02649
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 22, 2022
Docket2022-02788
StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.3d 962 (People ex rel. Lineberger v. Molina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Lineberger v. Molina, 204 A.D.3d 962, 165 N.Y.S.3d 320, 2022 NY Slip Op 02649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People ex rel. Lineberger v Molina (2022 NY Slip Op 02649)
People ex rel. Lineberger v Molina
2022 NY Slip Op 02649
Decided on April 22, 2022
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on April 22, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
ROBERT J. MILLER
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2022-02788 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT

[*1]The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Martha E. Lineberger, on behalf of Nahum Allen, petitioner,

v

Louis Molina, etc., respondent.


Janet E. Sabel, New York, NY (Bridgette Bissonnette, Michelle McGrath, Stefen R. Short, Elena Landriscina, and Martha E. Lineberger, pro se, of counsel), for petitioner.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Radiyah Dobre of counsel), for respondent.



Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to release Nahum Allen upon his own recognizance or, in the alternative, to set reasonable bail upon Kings County Indictment No. 71443/2021. Application by the petitioner, inter alia, to seal certain papers filed in connection with this application for a writ of habeas corpus.

ORDERED that the application by the petitioner is denied; and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, did not violate "constitutional or statutory standards" (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger , 25 NY2d 497, 499; see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson , 48 NY2d 230).

BARROS, J.P., IANNACCI, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People ex rel. Klein v. Krueger
255 N.E.2d 552 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
People ex rel. Rosenthal v. Wolfson
397 N.E.2d 745 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 A.D.3d 962, 165 N.Y.S.3d 320, 2022 NY Slip Op 02649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-lineberger-v-molina-nyappdiv-2022.